Search (191 results, page 1 of 10)

0.051955767 = product of:
  0.1558673 = sum of:
    0.094561845 = weight(_text_:graphic in 4218) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.094561845 = score(doc=4218,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.25850594 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.6217136 = idf(docFreq=159, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03903913 = queryNorm
        0.36580145 = fieldWeight in 4218, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.6217136 = idf(docFreq=159, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4218)
    0.06130545 = sum of:
      0.034859132 = weight(_text_:methods in 4218) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.034859132 = score(doc=4218,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15695344 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03903913 = queryNorm
          0.22209854 = fieldWeight in 4218, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4218)
      0.026446318 = weight(_text_:22 in 4218) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.026446318 = score(doc=4218,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1367084 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03903913 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4218, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4218)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

The discovery and retrieval of video games in library and information systems is, by and large, dependent on a limited set of descriptive metadata. Noticeably missing from this metadata are classifications of visual style-despite the overwhelmingly visual nature of most video games and the interest in visual style among video game users. One explanation for this paucity is the difficulty in eliciting consistent judgements about visual style, likely due to subjective interpretations of terminology and a lack of demonstrable testing for coinciding judgements. This study presents a taxonomy of video game visual styles constructed from the findings of a 22-participant cataloging user study of visual styles. A detailed description of the study, and its value and shortcomings, are presented along with reflections about the challenges of cultivating consensus about visual style in video games. The high degree of overall agreement in the user study demonstrates the potential value of a descriptor like visual style and the use of a cataloging study in developing visual style taxonomies. The resulting visual style taxonomy, the methods and analysis described herein may help improve the organization and retrieval of video games and possibly other visual materials like graphic designs, illustrations, and animations.

0.022064433 = product of:
  0.1323866 = sum of:
    0.1323866 = weight(_text_:graphic in 5133) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1323866 = score(doc=5133,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.25850594 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.6217136 = idf(docFreq=159, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03903913 = queryNorm
        0.51212204 = fieldWeight in 5133, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.6217136 = idf(docFreq=159, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5133)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

This article presents a case study of quality management for print and electronic resource metadata, summarizing problems and solutions encountered by the Cataloging and Discovery Services Department in the George A. Smathers Libraries at the University of Florida. The authors discuss national, state, and local standards for cataloging, automated and manual record enhancements for data, user feedback, and statewide consortial factors. Findings show that adherence to standards, proactive cleanup of data via manual processes and automated tools, collaboration with vendors and stakeholders, and continual assessment of workflows are key to the management of biblio-graphic data quality in consortial academic libraries.

0.018912371 = product of:
  0.11347422 = sum of:
    0.11347422 = weight(_text_:graphic in 3893) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11347422 = score(doc=3893,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.25850594 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.6217136 = idf(docFreq=159, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03903913 = queryNorm
        0.43896174 = fieldWeight in 3893, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.6217136 = idf(docFreq=159, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3893)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

0.017398953 = product of:
  0.10439371 = sum of:
    0.10439371 = sum of:
      0.07794739 = weight(_text_:methods in 3524) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.07794739 = score(doc=3524,freq=10.0), product of:
          0.15695344 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03903913 = queryNorm
          0.4966275 = fieldWeight in 3524, product of:
            3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
              10.0 = termFreq=10.0
            4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3524)
      0.026446318 = weight(_text_:22 in 3524) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.026446318 = score(doc=3524,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1367084 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03903913 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 3524, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3524)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Tags (keywords freely assigned by users to describe web content) have become highly popular on Web 2.0 applications, because of the strong stimuli and easiness for users to create and describe their own content. This increase in tag popularity has led to a vast literature on tag recommendation methods. These methods aim at assisting users in the tagging process, possibly increasing the quality of the generated tags and, consequently, improving the quality of the information retrieval (IR) services that rely on tags as data sources. Regardless of the numerous and diversified previous studies on tag recommendation, to our knowledge, no previous work has summarized and organized them into a single survey article. In this article, we propose a taxonomy for tag recommendation methods, classifying them according to the target of the recommendations, their objectives, exploited data sources, and underlying techniques. Moreover, we provide a critical overview of these methods, pointing out their advantages and disadvantages. Finally, we describe the main open challenges related to the field, such as tag ambiguity, cold start, and evaluation issues.

Date

16.11.2017 13:30:22

0.014304606 = product of:
  0.085827634 = sum of:
    0.085827634 = sum of:
      0.048802786 = weight(_text_:methods in 2606) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.048802786 = score(doc=2606,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15695344 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03903913 = queryNorm
          0.31093797 = fieldWeight in 2606, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2606)
      0.037024844 = weight(_text_:22 in 2606) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.037024844 = score(doc=2606,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1367084 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03903913 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2606, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2606)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Catalogers have become fluent in information technology such as web design skills, HyperText Markup Language (HTML), Cascading Stylesheets (CSS), eXensible Markup Language (XML), and programming languages. The knowledge gained from learning information technology can be used to experiment with methods of transforming one metadata schema into another using various software solutions. This paper will discuss the use of eXtensible Stylesheet Language Transformations (XSLT) for repurposing, editing, and reformatting metadata. Catalogers have the requisite skills for working with any metadata schema, and if they are excluded from metadata work, libraries are wasting a valuable human resource.

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.01416872 = product of:
  0.04250616 = sum of:
    0.021349104 = product of:
      0.04269821 = sum of:
        0.04269821 = weight(_text_:29 in 1953) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04269821 = score(doc=1953,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13732746 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03903913 = queryNorm
            0.31092256 = fieldWeight in 1953, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1953)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.021157054 = product of:
      0.04231411 = sum of:
        0.04231411 = weight(_text_:22 in 1953) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04231411 = score(doc=1953,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1367084 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03903913 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 1953, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1953)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Date

29. 5.2015 19:09:22

0.01239763 = product of:
  0.03719289 = sum of:
    0.018680464 = product of:
      0.03736093 = sum of:
        0.03736093 = weight(_text_:29 in 2673) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03736093 = score(doc=2673,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13732746 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03903913 = queryNorm
            0.27205724 = fieldWeight in 2673, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2673)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.018512422 = product of:
      0.037024844 = sum of:
        0.037024844 = weight(_text_:22 in 2673) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.037024844 = score(doc=2673,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1367084 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03903913 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2673, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2673)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Date

1. 8.1996 22:08:06

Source

Computer networks and ISDN systems. 29(1997) no.8, S.1147-1156

0.0120253395 = product of:
  0.036076017 = sum of:
    0.018646449 = product of:
      0.037292898 = sum of:
        0.037292898 = weight(_text_:theory in 3946) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.037292898 = score(doc=3946,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16234003 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03903913 = queryNorm
            0.2297209 = fieldWeight in 3946, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3946)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.017429566 = product of:
      0.034859132 = sum of:
        0.034859132 = weight(_text_:methods in 3946) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.034859132 = score(doc=3946,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15695344 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03903913 = queryNorm
            0.22209854 = fieldWeight in 3946, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3946)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to investigate tag use in a metadata ecosystem that supports a fan work repository to identify functions of tags and explore the system as a co-constructed communicative context. Design/methodology/approach Using modified techniques from grounded theory (Charmaz, 2007), this paper integrates humanistic and social science methods to identify kinds of tag use in a rich setting. Findings Three primary roles of tags emerge out of detailed study of the metadata ecosystem: tags can identify elements in the fan work, tags can reflect on how those elements are used or adapted in the fan work, and finally, tags can express the fan author's sense of her role in the discursive context of the fan work repository. Attending to each of the tag roles shifts focus away from just what tags say to include how they say it. Practical implications Instead of building metadata systems designed solely for retrieval or description, this research suggests that it may be fruitful to build systems that recognize various metadata functions and allow for expressivity. This research also suggests that attending to metadata previously considered unusable in systems may reflect the participants' sense of the system and their role within it. Originality/value In addition to accommodating a wider range of tag functions, this research implies consideration of metadata ecosystems, where different kinds of tags do different things and work together to create a multifaceted artifact.

0.010663213 = product of:
  0.063979276 = sum of:
    0.063979276 = sum of:
      0.037292898 = weight(_text_:theory in 5730) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.037292898 = score(doc=5730,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16234003 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03903913 = queryNorm
          0.2297209 = fieldWeight in 5730, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5730)
      0.02668638 = weight(_text_:29 in 5730) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.02668638 = score(doc=5730,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.13732746 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03903913 = queryNorm
          0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 5730, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5730)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Traditional paper documents, as containers of information, remain a primary source of organizational knowledge as well as function as vehicles of communication. Despite the increasing use of electronic mail and other digital technologies, the entrenchment of paper documents in the fabric of work practices demands that attention be paid to how they are managed for organizational effectiveness. A shift is occurring from the classical empiricist idea of a universe of knowledge to the historicist paradigm which embraces context and a belief that knowledge develops within knowledge domains or discourse communities. The workplace is likened to an information ecology where the study of personal classification schemes can be firmly positioned within an epistemological framework. This exploratory study of the personal metadata creation process builds grounded theory as it found that temporal, spatial, and contextual factors influenced the creation of three levels of metadata along a continuum of Abstract:ion. Loss of intellectual content may occur equally as a result of both high and low levels of Abstract:ion. Personal metadata were also found to reflect the participant's situational and domain specific knowledge. The 'epistemological potential of documents', therefore, provides an impetus for the scholarly inquiry of personal, human-created metadata by positioning such inquiry firmly within a pragmatic context.

Date

29. 9.2008 19:13:14

0.010217575 = product of:
  0.06130545 = sum of:
    0.06130545 = sum of:
      0.034859132 = weight(_text_:methods in 124) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.034859132 = score(doc=124,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15695344 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03903913 = queryNorm
          0.22209854 = fieldWeight in 124, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=124)
      0.026446318 = weight(_text_:22 in 124) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.026446318 = score(doc=124,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1367084 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03903913 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 124, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=124)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Cornell University Library (CUL) has developed a largely automated method for providing title-level catalog access to electronic journals made available through aggregator packages. CUL's technique for automated e-journal record creation and maintenance relies largely on the conversion of externally supplied metadata into streamlined, abbreviated-level MARC records. Unlike the Cooperative Online Serials Cataloging Program's recently implemented aggregator-neutral approach to e-journal cataloging, CUL's method involves the creation of a separate bibliographic record for each version of an e-journal title in order to facilitate automated record maintenance. An indexed local field indicates the aggregation to which each title belongs and enables machine manipulation of all the records associated with a specific aggregation. Information encoded in another locally defined field facilitates the identification of all of the library's e-journal titles and allows for the automatic generation of a Web-based title list of e-journals. CUL's approach to providing title-level catalog access to its e-journal aggregations involves a number of tradeoffs in which some elements of traditional bibliographic description (such as subject headings and linking fields) are sacrificed in the interest of timeliness and affordability. URLs (Uniform Resource Locators) and holdings information are updated on a regular basis by use of automated methods that save on staff costs.

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.010217575 = product of:
  0.06130545 = sum of:
    0.06130545 = sum of:
      0.034859132 = weight(_text_:methods in 4550) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.034859132 = score(doc=4550,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15695344 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03903913 = queryNorm
          0.22209854 = fieldWeight in 4550, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4550)
      0.026446318 = weight(_text_:22 in 4550) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.026446318 = score(doc=4550,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1367084 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03903913 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4550, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4550)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

In 2016, the University of Waterloo began offering a mediated copyright review and deposit service to support the growth of our institutional repository UWSpace. This resulted in the need to batch import large lists of published works into the institutional repository quickly and accurately. A range of methods have been proposed for harvesting publications metadata en masse, but many technological solutions can easily become detached from a workflow that is both reproducible for support staff and applicable to a range of situations. Many repositories offer the capacity for batch upload via CSV, so our method provides a template Python script that leverages the Habanero library for populating CSV files with existing metadata retrieved from the CrossRef API. In our case, we have combined this with useful metadata contained in a TSV file downloaded from Web of Science in order to enrich our metadata as well. The appeal of this 'low-maintenance' method is that it provides more robust options for gathering metadata semi-automatically, and only requires the user's ability to access Web of Science and the Python program, while still remaining flexible enough for local customizations.

Date

10.11.2018 16:27:22

0.00824577 = product of:
  0.04947462 = sum of:
    0.04947462 = product of:
      0.09894924 = sum of:
        0.09894924 = weight(_text_:theory in 5068) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09894924 = score(doc=5068,freq=22.0), product of:
            0.16234003 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03903913 = queryNorm
            0.6095184 = fieldWeight in 5068, product of:
              4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
                22.0 = termFreq=22.0
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5068)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

This paper presents a new theory of metadata enriching and filtering. The theory emerged from a rigorous grounded theory data analysis of 57 in-depth interviews with metadata experts, library and information science researchers, librarians as well as academic library users (G. Alemu, A Theory of Digital Library Metadata: The Emergence of Enriching and Filtering, University of Portsmouth PhD thesis, Portsmouth, 2014). Partly due to the novelty of Web 2.0 approaches and mainly due to the absence of foundational theories to underpin socially constructed metadata approaches, this research adapted a social constructivist philosophical approach and a constructivist grounded theory method (K.?Charmaz, Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide through Qualitative Analysis, SAGE Publications, London, 2006). The theory espouses the importance of enriching information objects with descriptions pertaining to the about-ness of information objects. Such richness and diversity of descriptions, it is argued, could chiefly be achieved by involving users in the metadata creation process. The theory includes four overarching metadata principles - metadata enriching, linking, openness and filtering. The theory proposes a mixed metadata approach where metadata experts provide the requisite basic descriptive metadata, structure and interoperability (a priori metadata) while users continually enrich it with their own interpretations (post-hoc metadata). Enriched metadata is inter- and cross-linked (the principle of linking), made openly accessible (the principle of openness) and presented (the principle of filtering) according to user needs. It is argued that enriched, interlinked and open metadata effectively rises and scales to the challenges presented by the growing digital collections and changing user expectations. This metadata approach allows users to pro-actively engage in co-creating metadata, hence enhancing the findability, discoverability and subsequent usage of information resources. This paper concludes by indicating the current challenges and opportunities to implement the theory of metadata enriching and filtering.

0.00817406 = product of:
  0.04904436 = sum of:
    0.04904436 = sum of:
      0.027887305 = weight(_text_:methods in 367) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.027887305 = score(doc=367,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15695344 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03903913 = queryNorm
          0.17767884 = fieldWeight in 367, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=367)
      0.021157054 = weight(_text_:22 in 367) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.021157054 = score(doc=367,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1367084 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03903913 = queryNorm
          0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 367, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=367)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

The proliferation of discipline-specific metadata schemes contributes to artificial barriers that can impede interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary research. The authors considered this problem by examining the domains, objectives, and architectures of nine metadata schemes used to document scientific data in the physical, life, and social sciences. They used a mixed-methods content analysis and Greenberg's () metadata objectives, principles, domains, and architectural layout (MODAL) framework, and derived 22 metadata-related goals from textual content describing each metadata scheme. Relationships are identified between the domains (e.g., scientific discipline and type of data) and the categories of scheme objectives. For each strong correlation (>0.6), a Fisher's exact test for nonparametric data was used to determine significance (p < .05). Significant relationships were found between the domains and objectives of the schemes. Schemes describing observational data are more likely to have "scheme harmonization" (compatibility and interoperability with related schemes) as an objective; schemes with the objective "abstraction" (a conceptual model exists separate from the technical implementation) also have the objective "sufficiency" (the scheme defines a minimal amount of information to meet the needs of the community); and schemes with the objective "data publication" do not have the objective "element refinement." The analysis indicates that many metadata-driven goals expressed by communities are independent of scientific discipline or the type of data, although they are constrained by historical community practices and workflows as well as the technological environment at the time of scheme creation. The analysis reveals 11 fundamental metadata goals for metadata documenting scientific data in support of sharing research data across disciplines and domains. The authors report these results and highlight the need for more metadata-related research, particularly in the context of recent funding agency policy changes.

0.007480149 = product of:
  0.044880893 = sum of:
    0.044880893 = product of:
      0.089761786 = sum of:
        0.089761786 = weight(_text_:22 in 5743) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.089761786 = score(doc=5743,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.1367084 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03903913 = queryNorm
            0.6565931 = fieldWeight in 5743, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=5743)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Date

30. 3.2002 19:45:22

Source

Revista Española de Documentaçion Cientifica. 22(1999) no.2, S.198-219

0.0070523517 = product of:
  0.04231411 = sum of:
    0.04231411 = product of:
      0.08462822 = sum of:
        0.08462822 = weight(_text_:22 in 4899) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08462822 = score(doc=4899,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1367084 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03903913 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 4899, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=4899)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Date

16. 7.2000 20:58:22

0.0070523517 = product of:
  0.04231411 = sum of:
    0.04231411 = product of:
      0.08462822 = sum of:
        0.08462822 = weight(_text_:22 in 2840) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08462822 = score(doc=2840,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1367084 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03903913 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 2840, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=2840)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Source

Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.1

0.006397928 = product of:
  0.038387567 = sum of:
    0.038387567 = sum of:
      0.022375738 = weight(_text_:theory in 732) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.022375738 = score(doc=732,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16234003 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03903913 = queryNorm
          0.13783254 = fieldWeight in 732, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=732)
      0.016011827 = weight(_text_:29 in 732) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.016011827 = score(doc=732,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.13732746 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03903913 = queryNorm
          0.11659596 = fieldWeight in 732, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=732)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Metadata in the Digital Library is a complete guide to building a digital library metadata strategy from scratch, using established metadata standards bound together by the markup language XML. The book introduces the reader to the theory of metadata and shows how it can be applied in practice. It lays out the basic principles that should underlie any metadata strategy, including its relation to such fundamentals as the digital curation lifecycle, and demonstrates how they should be put into effect. It introduces the XML language and the key standards for each type of metadata, including Dublin Core and MODS for descriptive metadata and PREMIS for its administrative and preservation counterpart. Finally, the book shows how these can all be integrated using the packaging standard METS. Two case studies from the Warburg Institute in London show how the strategy can be implemented in a working environment. The strategy laid out in this book will ensure that a digital library's metadata will support all of its operations, be fully interoperable with others and enable its long-term preservation. It assumes no prior knowledge of metadata, XML or any of the standards that it covers. It provides both an introduction to best practices in digital library metadata and a manual for their practical implementation.

Date

29. 9.2022 17:57:57

0.006226822 = product of:
  0.03736093 = sum of:
    0.03736093 = product of:
      0.07472186 = sum of:
        0.07472186 = weight(_text_:29 in 4900) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07472186 = score(doc=4900,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13732746 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03903913 = queryNorm
            0.5441145 = fieldWeight in 4900, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=4900)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Source

Vine. 2000, no.117, S.24-29

0.006226822 = product of:
  0.03736093 = sum of:
    0.03736093 = product of:
      0.07472186 = sum of:
        0.07472186 = weight(_text_:29 in 6338) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07472186 = score(doc=6338,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13732746 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03903913 = queryNorm
            0.5441145 = fieldWeight in 6338, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=6338)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Source

International cataloguing and bibliographic control. 29(2000) no.2, S.33-35

0.0061708074 = product of:
  0.037024844 = sum of:
    0.037024844 = product of:
      0.07404969 = sum of:
        0.07404969 = weight(_text_:22 in 4407) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07404969 = score(doc=4407,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1367084 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03903913 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 4407, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=4407)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Date

28. 3.2002 9:22:34